Iran - What Nuclear Weapons Program?

Oh, it would be disastrous for Israel, their idiot adventure into the Lebanon proves that.

Israel is not simply defending themselves when they go into other nations and kidnap and murder.

Are you really so dense as not to see that that makes people want to attack them?

If Israel doesn't "start the war," there will be no war with Egypt. As there is no reason for Egypt to attack Israel, Israel won't need to defend itself.

What do you allege Egypt is asking for?

If they don't attack Israel, do you allege that they will have asked Israel to attck them?

Will you then allege that Egypt started it.

"chicken hawk" has also, by extension, come to refer to those who talk glowingly of war, but don't go themselves. Which pretty clearly describes oralloy.

The point is, Roger, that Palestinian lands were not in Jordan or Iraq or Syria. They were in what is now Israel.

Yeah, like all bluster and no bite.

You are delusional and have adduced no basis for your claims (the one about Turkey is really hilarious), so i see no point in continuing to humor your delusions.

I knew what I posted, and I know it's reliable news (it was). You are delusional to think I don't know what I post.

Your memory is short; you really don't know what I've been saying about this issue.

a) bomb Iran's nuclear program into powder, and keep bombing them as they try to rebuild

What makes you think any country will approve such an attack?

Both the US and Israel have expressed willingness to carry out such an attack. Israel is perhaps more willing than the US, but both are prepared to do it under certain circumstances.

"Willingness?" Where did you learn that?

From TheHill.com.

Quote:

Top US general cautions Israel, says attack on Iran would be ‘destabilizing’
By Jordy Yager - 02/19/12 05:20 PM ET

Obama has been quite clear that he is willing to use military force should he deem it to be necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

NO; what you said was

Quote:

Both the US and Israel have expressed willingness to carry out such an attack.

Both the US and Israel have in fact expressed such a willingness.

High Seas wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

NO; what you said was

Quote:

Both the US and Israel have expressed willingness to carry out such an attack.

Hint, hint: our friend Oralloy speaks with authority for the US government, whereas General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a clueless fool who hasn't heard yet of our "willingness to carry out such an attack" - so why argue about it

It also seems English is his second or third language; he doesn't seem to comprehend much written in English.

The fact that my answers are confusing to you is in no way a reflection on my English-speaking ability.

But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that's not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community. And I assure you that Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports -- which are very difficult for them to carry out, because they get a lot of oil from Iran -- had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world's interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. China would not have abided by the existing sanctions coming out of the National Security Council, and other countries around the world would not have unified around those sanctions, had it not been for us making the presentation about why this was important for everyone, not just one country.

Latest season of the never-ending war.

What's so important about your being here, and this kind of interest is the basic principle that I realized a long time ago and that many of you realized long before I did, is that we are, in fact, programmable creatures. We can be taught from childhood. And we are taught, in this country, in such a way that we're conditioned — that we'll respond when someone else reaches inside our breast to poke buttons and make us march off to war and kill people, or cheer when others go off to kill people. And the only way to defend yourself and your loved ones against that is to program yourself. And you do that by reading books and by sharing conversations with serious people and by lectures and events like this one, and all the other ones that you've been doing. And certainly, this great engine of information and energy [in this audience] is just awesome.


...

You've got to understand that the United States is and has always been a war-loving nation, a warring nation. But one with a smile. We've learned how to put a twist on it so we can feel good about doing what other nations have done that we consider to be evil.

...

And with that analysis, about ten years ago (although most of my growth, intellectually, has been since then) I began to just sit down and doodle how many wars the United States has been into. And I noticed there are a whole bunch of them. We've done a lot of this thing. A very warring nation! [War is] very deep in our history. Fifteen wars, as I count them. And this gets semantical. They didn't call Korea a war. They tried not to call Vietnam a war. But [the United States'] major military actions: I count about fifteen, give or take two, if you want to call them minor, but nevertheless, let's say fifteen wars. We've spent fifty years or so at war. We've had two hundred-plus military actions, about once a year, in which we put our troops into other countries to force them to our will. The longest period between wars was between World War I and World War II. The second longest period was between the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War.

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock2.html

The problem is that any conflict Israel starts with Iran will be on the backs of Americans, and that'll include most of the Middle East - not just Iran.